I Left MAGA Host SPEECHLESS on CNN

My entire life Republicans have been targeting minority group after minority group. Conservatives have been getting rich and gaining power off of this, targeting immigrants, targeting LGBTQ people, women. It's been Somalis, Haitians, but the second that certain MAGA commentators are now the subject of this exact type of bigotry, they have a stunning amount of moral clarity about it. Vivek Ramaswamy only had moral clarity when anti-Indian American hatred was being spread. Republican Representative Randy Fine has a lot of moral clarity about bigotry when it's

against him, but the way that he talks about Zoran Mamdani, the way that he talks about Ilhan Omar is incredibly contradictory. You can't just stop bigotry from entering your movement when it's hitting you. You have to stop it at the door. Do you know who Paul Ingrassi is? Sure. Do you know who Paul Ingrasia is? Yeah, we've debated it. Do you know what, okay, so do you know what Paul Ingrasia said?

Yeah, we've debated it.

That he has a Nazi streak. Oh, you've debated it, but has Trump fired him or is he still a part of the administration?

I don't know where he is right now.

He's a part of the administration and you know that. You're lying right now. Do you condemn Paul and Gracia? Hey everybody, Adam Mochler here. I just got back from a very heated debate on CNN, and this might be the best one yet. You're going to want to watch this until the end. And if you want to help boost the message, make sure that you drop a like below and make sure you're subscribed to the Adam Mochler feed. Thank you all and check this out. The FBI, back in July, released this memo that I was reading where they made a few claims that were just blown out by the Trump administration.

First of all, they said that, or blown out by the DOJ, they said that releasing any more files would require releasing child pornography. Then they said there was no evidence linking anyone else to the scheme other than Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. After Congress forced the release of tens of thousands of files, we now know the FBI was lying. Pam Bondi also lied on Fox News.

She said she had the files on her desk, she was gonna release them. So the entire priority of this administration has been off. The DOJ had a few goals. They said they have to release all of the files with reasonable redactions.

They did neither of those things. They didn't release all of the files, they're drip-feeding them, and the redactions weren't reasonable. It was over-redacted in some parts, and as we just saw, under-redacted in other parts, and victims were exposed.

And they had plenty of time to do this right.

Yeah.

30 days? And I think that's been one of the concerns and the complaints of the victims is that they never heard from DOJ about how to do this in a way that centered their needs for justice in all of this, which is purportedly what DOJ says that they were trying to protect. But it seems like Trump is also concerned about protecting,

I don't know, other people who were palling around with Jeffrey Epstein.

I don't like the pictures of Bill Clinton being shown. I don't like the pictures of other people being shown. I think it's a terrible thing. I think Bill Clinton's a big boy. He can handle it. But you probably have pictures being exposed of other people that innocently met Jeffrey Epstein years ago, many years

ago.

And so to Nina's point, he's not wrong that there are some people who are photographed there. Maybe they went to a concert, an event, weren't involved in the larger scheme. But Bill Clinton has been targeted by Trump officials in the last few days. And his spokesperson said, we're not afraid of this being released. Please release it all. It seems that the only person who really doesn't want more released is President Trump.

Well, President Trump came out a few weeks back and was actually in support of releasing the files and having everything be out there. I think that what the president's point here is a presumption of innocence until guilt, right? To not jump to any conclusions. But I would say we gotta extract the politics

out of this whole thing, and it's everyone at the table agrees on. The main point of this is getting justice for the victims and ensuring that we do it correctly. And Abby, I agree with your point. I agree with your point that we've got to protect the victims, keep their names redacted. And even if that does mean over redacting until we are sure, you know, what we have and what we're releasing is there.

But I'm not going to go down the road of injecting politics into something that shouldn't be political at all. It's about getting justice and closure for these victims, but also doing so out of respect for the courts, like you said earlier, and having that operating with that presumption of innocence until we have some evidence that someone is guilty through the process of the courts.

It's uniquely important to Donald Trump now that there's a presumption of innocence, but he's willing to proactively say that people like Schiff, people like Letitia James are guilty. Now it's very, very important that we're super careful about what photos we're releasing. I just find it really convenient that Donald Trump

is now so worried about this.

I go back to the point I made earlier, is that you just tried to re-inject politics in this. You have to separate these two things. There are peoples whose lives are impacted here. I'll start to separate it when Trump's in prison. Well, be the leader and show him the way.

I'm a 23-year-old. He's the president.

This is the, this is the.

You're telling Adam to do that.

That's Adam's go-to.

Okay. I believe that.

Your guy's go-to is blaming me more than Trump. the president of the United States. Maybe Adam will be a future president, who knows. But the fact of the matter is that this is not about politics. Extract the politics out of it and you have to do whatever it takes to get justice for these victims while also

protecting them. But I also think that there are people are, I think, rightfully concerned that DOJ is trying to protect one man. Oh no, they absolutely are. And that concern was heightened when there were photos that were put out and then they were removed from the website and then put back out once there was some outcry about it. So people, that suspicion is there because, not just because of the words that Trump said

under duress, but because of the actions of the president and his administration when it came to this issue? Should there be boundaries? Should someone be able to go up on that stage and say, if you believe these things, you are not part of our movement?

Well, look, my personal view is that this was an event. It's the first big rally since Charlie got murdered. And specifically what Candace has been doing, terrorizing a grieving widow for the last several months with conspiracy theories, some of them wrapped up in this whole Israel nonsense,

is nothing short of despicable. And I think Ben was right to call that out. I didn't hear Ben calling for the excommunication or the deplatforming of anyone. But I do think it's more than reasonable to say, what kind of a movement allows someone

in whose job is to monet, what kind of a movement allows someone in whose job is to monetize the grief of a widow after she had to witness her husband and the leader of this organization get murdered? I think that's more than in bounds for him to talk about. Look, we're a political party and a political movement.

We're not a sponge. You don't have to absorb everything that oozes in under the door. I think that was Ben's point. And look, everybody's gonna have a right to say whatever they want. It's not about free speech. It's about what sort of speech you want to be identified with. I, for one, don't really want to be identified with someone

who is terrorizing a grieving widow. Yeah, and we'll get to the...

how Vance plays into this, because you mentioned it. But, you know, the New York Times wrote this, and the depths of these Republican divisions has been obscured by two things shared affection for Trump and a shared revulsion at the left But Trump is no longer on the ballot and there's increased alarm over the new right

These two factors are working together to shrink the Republican tent. Yeah, you said JD Vance his important opinion is important He has had no moral clarity about any of this division whatsoever He refused to condemn the young Republican group chat when it came out a few months ago. They were talking about gas chambers. He's refused to condemn Paul and Gracia. He's refused to directly combat the Groyper movement growing. I just think it's my entire life Republicans have been targeting minority group after minority

group. Conservatives have been getting rich and gaining power off of this, targeting immigrants, targeting LGBTQ people, women. it's been Somalis, Haitians, but the second that certain MAGA commentators are now the subject of this exact type of bigotry, they have a stunning amount of moral clarity about it. Vivek Ramaswamy only had moral clarity

when anti-Indian American hatred was being spread. Republican Representative Randy Fine has a lot of moral clarity about bigotry when it's against him, but the way that he talks about Zoran Mamdani, the way he talks about Ilhan Omar is incredibly contradictory. You can't just stop bigotry from entering your movements when it's hitting you. You have to stop it at the door.

This is not courageous for people to speak out. It is self-preservation at this point. You brought up Mamdani. when it comes to Israel and the attacks on Jews? The day after he was elected, there was a swastika drawn on a window, and he immediately tweeted out and condemned it. There is no equivocation between the way... There is no equivalent between the way Zoran and JD Vance have conducted themselves.

Do you think JD Vance should condemn Nick Fuente? Should JD Vance condemn the Gropers?

He has. He told them he could eat S-H-I-T. Number two, today Mamdani got asked, you know there are people on your transition team who have said it's okay to kill Jews after October the 7th and he said, oh well you know we have a diversity of political opinion. I think to throw Mamdani in with J.D. Vance is a huge reach. Mamdani has been the opposite of morally clear on this.

Are you joking J.D. Vance?

Let me ask you this because I think This is actually to Adam's point. If you are willing to condemn, let's, you know, if you're willing to condemn Mamdani for what you just described, again, why would you not condemn conservatives for doing effectively the same thing when you have people like, you know, Nick Fuentes who are out there.

Are you questioning me about what I've had to say about anti-Semitism?

I'm questioning you about whether you're willing to apply the same principle to Mamdani that you would apply to people in your own party. Are you willing to do that?

I have repeatedly on this show said anti-Semitism has no place in our political discourse and

we don't need to be associated with it. So for the people like JD Vance who say, oh well you know we have a lot of different viewpoints in the Republican tent and who am I to say who is in and who is not? He just mentioned the Republican group chat and that was effectively JD Vance's point which is that these are just boys, boys will be boys, they're just young men, we're not gonna denounce them, we're not gonna denounce them over little mistakes.

Are you okay with that?

J.D. Vance is going to have ample opportunity to lead this coalition.

No, but I'm asking about you.

But I will.

Wait, do you think J.D. Vance should condemn it?

I'm asking about you. Are you okay with that? That's what I'm at. I get that JD Vance is JD Vance, but I'm wondering about you. What is the principle that you apply to JD Vance? Is it the same as what you're applying to Mamdani?

Well, I don't put them anywhere near in the same universe, A. B, look, it is up to us as conservatives to decide who we want to be associated with. I can assure you, we do not want to be associated associated in any way, shape, or form with Nick Fuentes or anybody approximating what he has to say, period, full stop. It will destroy us if we do it. I wish Shady Vance would say the same thing.

Tim.

I was going to say, I completely agree. There's been several leaders in the conservative movement who've pushed back on all these talking points about anti-Semitism, and I will completely agree with Scott, there is no place in the conservative movement or in the Republican party for that matter for anti-Semitism or any of those things. I do find it ironic though that you compare the vice president who has in fact, your litmus test was that he went on Twitter and you just said the vice president didn't condemn something from the stage.

The vice president condemned the group chat, we've talked about this on this show, and you guys are completely mis-

He called it.

He called it. on this show and you guys are completely mischaracterizing statements that the vice president made. He absolutely came out and condemned and said that there is no place for any comments like that in the Republican party.

J.D. Vance said he's going to warn his kids so some quote unquote scumbag doesn't leak a group chat in a similar way. He was implying the person who leaked the group chat was a scumbag. JD Vance has had the farthest thing from moral clarity this entire time. And listen, do you know who Paul Ingrassi is?

Sure.

Do you know who Paul Ingrassi is? Yeah, we've debated it. Do you know what, okay, so do you know that. You're lying right now. You know that he is a part of the administration. He is still there, and he said he, quote, has a Nazi streak.

So you can sit there and play coy, but you are not having the clarity that you are talking about right now.

Do you condemn Paul Ingracio? having a Nazi streak. I think the Republicans just have a problem. I would say the Democratic Party has a problem as well. Whenever you coddle bigots, it's going to come back to haunt you. And so Republicans do definitely have a decision to make whether or not, you know, having free speech is one thing, but coddling people who would cradle bigotry, nurse bigotry, stand up and clap for bigotry, that is a problem. And so now because the fractions within the Republican Party, which there are some in the Democratic Party too, are having this fight because

the promise was that President Donald J. Trump was going to change the material conditions of working-class people in the United States of America and that heretofore has not happened in a way that gives people the relief that they need and so now you have these people fighting but bigots are going to bigot and so leaders have a responsibility. Is Vice President J.D. Vance going to be the vice president for everybody or for certain people? Well first of all Ben didn't

actually bring up Israel in his speech it wasn't really about it wasn't really about Israel so that's number one. Number two you're very interested in Gracia who I'm only vaguely familiar with him never met. He said he's on a Nazi streak. But we're all familiar with Mamdani so I'll ask you OK, so do you condemn Zoran Mamdani for his failure to condemn people who go around chanting

this at his rallies and events?

It's a false equivalence.

Oh, is it?

So you want to hold Republican responsible for a grazia,

but not for Mamdani?

Quote unquote, I was on a Nazi streak.

Zoran Mamdani has been very, very clear about anti-Semitism. You can't condemn it today. All right. And if you can't get moral clarity on globalizing

Antifa today, you've got a problem.

Let me just hit pause, because we have more on the other side of this. Next for us, JD Vance.

The issue with Israel and the Republican Party, we haven't talked much about them tonight. But Trump has been unapologetically pro-Israel. And he's been unequivocal. You know, this connection between Vance and Charlie Kirk is interesting. Charlie Kirk very much supported J.D. Vance helping him get elected to the Senate.

His wife has come out and endorsed him for president. If I may, just read a couple of comments. Charlie Kirk said he would, quote, never build a big tent with Nick Fuentes. I don't align with Jew haters. Sorry, I'm not going to put up with Jew hatred in the conservative movement in America. And Erika Kirk said, what healing factor comes out

of hating Jewish people? Nothing. Charlie always would say very clearly, Jew hate was brain rot. He would always say it. And so if you believe what is true, which

is that Vance has a very strong connection to Erica and the Kirk family, they are long on the record of opposing aligning with anti-Semitic elements.

He's not taking that message, okay? Here's what he said. This is what J.D. Vance said today to a conservative outlet. He said, let's say you believe, as I do, that racism is bad, that we should judge people according to their deeds and not their ethnicity. Is Nick Fuentes really the problem in this country? He's a podcaster. He has a dedicated group of young fans. Some of them have been shitty to my friends and family, not least Mrs. Vance. Does that

annoy me? Of course, but let's keep some perspective. For the last 10 years I've watched half of our political leadership go all-in on the idea that discriminating against whites in college admissions and jobs is not just okay, but affirmatively good. If you believe racism is bad, Fuentes should occupy one second of your focus, and the people with actual political power who worked so hard to discriminate against white men should occupy many hours of it.

Tim, I'm curious. Do you think that that is, I mean, he's basically saying affirmative action is worse, DI is worse, than a Jew-hating, Nazi-sympathizing bigot.

Abby, I'm gonna go back to the point that we made earlier that I just want stated very clearly. There is no place for any of these people who hate anyone for the color of their skin or who they choose to love or who they choose to worship in the Republican Party or in the conservative movement.

That's very clear. I want to go to a point that Nina said earlier. The fact of the matter is that we're not... But hold on. What about JD Vance and his leadership? I mean, if he is going to be taking the mantle of President Trump and leading the party, taking the mantle of Charlie Kirk, is this the brand of leadership that I just described there?

Those were his words. J.D. Vance, to your point, J.D. Vance has not only lived a life, but has led in a career that condemns these things. You're talking about someone who's a United States Marine who served with people from all walks of life across the country and served in combat In this country so this idea that the vice president all of a sudden doesn't believe these words

You're talking about someone who comes from nothing and built themselves up to be the vice president I don't want to say that's right. Hold on a vice president. I don't want to guess I believe these words he's a little Uniform in uniform on those words. So don't give me this idea that the vice president doesn't believe that we shouldn't have a country where everybody's welcome.

You heard him say it on there. Don't give me this trauma about Twitter. You know, the other point I'll make is, you talked about how we weren't applying this properly across the board, when it was dead silent, you, dead silent, when Jay Jones,

who was gonna be the attorney general in Virginia, who's gonna be the attorney general in Virginia, said that he wants to watch a woman's kids die, get shot so he can urinate on their grave. And you were silent, your party and your group were silent. So don't talk to me now, don't try to lecture us

and lecture the American people about equality and what's fair and who should be allowed in the party after your party sat silent after those words and someone is now gonna be the chief one for-

We just listened to Vivek Ramaswamy.

We just- In the Commonwealth of Virginia.

We just listened to Vivek Ramaswamy.

It's actually sickening and it's angering because you don't make sense.

We just listened to Vivek Ramaswamy Scott just read off Charlie Kirk and Erica Kirk quotes with a lot of moral clarity. I don't know if you were trying to convince us or JD Vance that there's no anti-Semitism, but there's a lot of moral clarity coming from these people, not from JD Vance. Like I'm going to say, he did not condemn the Young Republican group chat. You can lie and say he did. He didn't. JD Vance has played fast and loose with this movement the entire time time because he doesn't want to alienate the gray-paint movement. Right now, Scott played coy about Paul and Gracia and then took the moral high ground saying that we need clarity about these types of things. You are not providing the type of moral clarity. Can you say that

Paul and Gracia shouldn't belong in the administration? I don't know Paul and Gracia. We've debated it. We've had a Nazi streak.

If he said that, can you say that? I wouldn't waste any political capital on someone saying things this stupid. He didn't get that Senate-appointed job, but he did get appointed to a administration job. I personally wouldn't waste any capital on someone who says stupid things.

It's not any capital. It's a job offer being offered and accepted. He works in the administration now. It's as simple as that. Tis the season for Christmas music, but since some of us have been listening since Halloween, like myself, there might be an overplayed song. So for tonight's Newsnight Cap, what is the most overplayed Christmas song for you, Adam? You're up.

Listen, Rudolph has got to go. I feel bad for the guy. I feel bad that his friends bullied him. I'm glad that he figured out the red-nose thing, but the song is a bullied him. I'm glad that he figured out the red-nose thing, but the song is a little bit overplayed at this point. Sorry, Rudolph. That one's not for you.